Mark does say to avoid charring meat to avoid toxins. Seems like this study is in line with PB. Although I don't give the study much credence.

Basically they took a group of 500 people who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and a similar group of people who hadn't and then asked them about their dietary habits. The study was controlled for known links to cancer such as genetics, smoking, etc...which means obviously that the study was not controlled for *unsuspected* carcinogens. Specifically for things like inflammation from wheat and the artificial flavoring and coloring agents that fast food places add to their buns.

Men who ate the most ground beef were 2.3 times more likely than men who ate none to have aggressive prostate cancer. Higher consumption of fatty lunchmeats (such as salami) and liver was also associated with an increase in cancer risk. On the other hand, poultry, bacon, and low-fat hot dogs and sausages appeared to have little influence on cancer risk.

First, ground beef can be anywhere from something like 5% fat up to however much you want, so their whole "fatty meats" theory doesn't apply.

Second, how can you say salami is fatty and terrible but bacon is lean and fine. Huh???

Third, when did liver become Satan's Delight? It's good for you!

Fourth - holy crap, if you're eating lowfat hot dogs, you have bigger problems than I can help with.

The men who preferred their burgers well-done had double the cancer risk, while those who liked them medium (or rarer) had a negligible increase in risk -- just 12 percent. A similar pattern was seen with grilled or barbecued steak.

So, this is really a load of bullshit. The article starts off by pointing a finger toward red meat, and then goes to show that only those who ate red meat that was well done or grilled actually had an increased risk of getting cancer. Then it goes on to say:

Originally Posted by Article

Men who ate the most ground beef were 2.3 times more likely than men who ate none to have aggressive prostate cancer. Higher consumption of fatty lunchmeats (such as salami) and liver was also associated with an increase in cancer risk.

So, this is really a load of bullshit. The article starts off by pointing a finger toward red meat, and then goes to show that only those who ate red meat that was well done or grilled actually had an increased risk of getting cancer. Then it goes on to say:

On top of all this, the study relied entirely on the memory and reports of the patients, that alone makes it completely meaningless.

So what does this "study" say? Don't eat overcooked or processed food, it might cause cancer. I could of told you that without a multi-million dollar government grant.

Yeah, but everyone would rightly peg you as a fucktard when they read "could of" instead of "could have".

Anyway I really don't understand the trend here of "ZOMG a study that doesn't agree with what Mark tells us, quick, rip it to shreds before the cognitive dissonance makes my tiny brain explode!" You guys realise that fruitarian and vegan forums do the exact same thing with studies that contradict what they think? And that we bitch about that, too? So what makes us so different here?
No wonder some people think primal is some weird dietary cult. That's cultish behaviour if I ever saw it.

Anyway I really don't understand the trend here of "ZOMG a study that doesn't agree with what Mark tells us, quick, rip it to shreds before the cognitive dissonance makes my tiny brain explode!" You guys realise that fruitarian and vegan forums do the exact same thing with studies that contradict what they think? And that we bitch about that, too? So what makes us so different here?
No wonder some people think primal is some weird dietary cult. That's cultish behaviour if I ever saw it.

Dude, if you dont realize the difference between this forum and say the fruitarian forum that we dont want to name I dont know what to tell you. This is by far the most analytic, critisicing and investigating forum Ive ever read when it comes to diet and lifestyle.